欢迎来到房间:萨蒂亚·纳德拉的领导力课程
Welcome to the Room – A lesson in leadership by Satya Nadella

原始链接: https://www.jsnover.com/blog/2026/02/01/welcome-to-the-room/

萨蒂亚·纳德拉给新晋微软高管的领导力课程,是一次严厉的行动呼吁:“你们抱怨的日子结束了。” 进入这个“房间”并不意味着奖励,而是对卓越绩效和*实现*成功的要求,而不仅仅是讨论它。 纳德拉强调,高管只有两个关键的杠杆:团队文化/能量和资源分配。 成功需要勇敢地将资源分配给*与*传统智慧相悖的方向,接受潜在的失败——但前提是“知识上的诚实”。 这意味着拥有清晰的成功理论,将资源与之对齐,不断监测其合理性,并在必要时迅速调整。 核心信息不是关于战略,而是关于*执行*。 没有资源支持的战略仅仅是梦想。 高管的评判标准是*超常的*成功,通过积极地利用现有资源“制造”结果来实现,而不是看起来很忙。 持续的自我评估至关重要:资源分配是否支持战略? 是否有清晰的成功或失败信号? 活动是否转化为真正的进展? 最终,纳德拉的课程是一个问责制的框架,以及对交付切实成果的无情关注。

## 黑客新闻讨论:萨提亚·纳德拉的领导力与微软的轨迹 黑客新闻上最近的一篇帖子链接到一篇分析萨提亚·纳德拉领导力理念的文章。讨论迅速演变成对其在微软任职期间的批判性评估,许多用户质疑他的成功(如云增长和开源采用)是否抵消了其 perceived 的失败。 一些评论员认为纳德拉将股东价值置于产品质量和客户满意度之上,并指出 Windows 的问题、强制人工智能集成以及 Office 的“劣质化”。有些人认为他正在重蹈覆辙,牺牲长期可行性以换取短期收益,可能导致微软的衰落。另一些人将他的领导力与史蒂夫·鲍尔默进行对比,指出从产品重点转向财务工程。 一个反复出现的主题是对纳德拉领导力过于积极的评价持怀疑态度,指责微软内部存在企业“啦啦队式言论”和趋炎附势的文化。许多人认为他的讲话凸显了高管愿景与工程师和用户面临的现实之间的脱节。虽然承认微软在纳德拉领导下的财务成功,但许多评论员对产品的方向和未来的相关性表示担忧。
黑客新闻 新 | 过去 | 评论 | 提问 | 展示 | 招聘 | 提交 登录 Jeffrey Snover: “欢迎来到这间屋子” (jsnover.com) 5 分,来自 kaonwarb 2 小时前 | 隐藏 | 过去 | 收藏 | 1 条评论 _alaya 29 分钟前 [–] 哦,你好 Mark 回复 指南 | 常见问题 | 列表 | API | 安全 | 法律 | 申请 YC | 联系 搜索:
相关文章

原文

A lesson in leadership by Satya Nadella

When I was Promoted to Technical Fellow, I was “invited to the room”, joining Microsoft’s other Senior Executives.  It was really something. Achieving the Senior Executive status is often mistaken for a comfortable reward, a final destination with enhanced perks and support. A more  fitting analogy is reaching the NFL Super Bowl. You are now part of an elite team where nothing less than peak performance is acceptable. As the Navy SEALs put it, “The only easy day was yesterday”. You can feel that energy when you walk in the room. 

I didn’t know what to expect but what I got changed my worldview and my life.

The meeting began with Satya having all the new executives stand for a round of applause. Once we were seated, he delivered the most concise, precise, and actionable lesson in leadership imaginable—a lesson I believe everyone could benefit from. As I recall, he said:

I was going to highlight a few key takeaways from this text, distill them into a concise list, and simplify the message for quick consumption. But that would be like trying to add a few brushstrokes to the Mona Lisa. Every single line, every sentence, every phrase contained within Satya’s speech is a critical lesson, a foundational principle, and vital insight. Therefore, the only true instruction I can give is this:
Re-read it again and again until you get it.

Feynman once said, “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.”
So strip away the happy talk and corporate-speak.
Get to the underlying physics of the situation.
Get in the habit of asking these questions to flush out the self-deception in the room:

  • “Does our resource allocation actually support our theory of success?” 
    I can’t tell you how many times an exec sent out a ‘strategy’ memo and I thought, “That sounds great but what team is doing that?”.  If an exec creates a new strategy but doesn’t have a shift in resource allocation, you have a dream not a plan.  And an exec that doesn’t belong in the room.

If you are an exec and don’t have the resources to support your strategy, you have the wrong strategy.  Quit whining and wasting time trying to get the resources to support that strategy – do your job – get a strategy that can work with resources you have.

  • “What signals will tell us whether our theory is plausible or not and how long will it be before we get those signals?”
    It is not enough to simply realize you need to pivot; you must have the telemetry to realize it quickly. You need to know your theory is failing while you still have enough remaining resources to actually execute a change in direction. If your feedback loop is longer than your runway, you are already dead.
  • “Do the dots actually connect?”
    Start at the end—the “cash register ringing”—and work backward. Every single step in that chain must have a plausible plan. If your success depends on another team’s output, you are responsible for partnering with them, verifying their resources, and monitoring their progress. If they fail and you didn’t see it coming, you failed.
  • “Are we manufacturing success, or just managing decline?”
    Do not confuse activity with progress. If you are not actively using your allocated resources to create a winning outcome, you are just “rearranging deck chairs” on a sinking ship. In the “Room,” you are judged by the outsized success you deliver, not by how busy you or your teams appear to be.
  • Am I generating clarity or confusion for my team?
    Your job is to provide the clarity, culture, and energy that allows a team to move. Do not let your team—or yourself—off the hook with the phrase “working on it,” which is a known failure mode. You either have a plausible theory of success that accounts for the “grit of reality,” or you are simply wasting the organization’s time. And you have to repeat that theory over and over and over.  It is like parenting, the first hundred thousand times don’t count.  But after you tell your kids “Say Please and Thank You” a hundred thousand times, they start to get it.

Now, stop talking about it and go operationalize it. Get the telemetry. Align the resources. Manufacture the success. Anything else is just whining.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com